by Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

by Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court appeared deeply skeptical Wednesday of a Massachusetts law that created 35-foot buffer zones around abortion clinics.

Several of the court's conservative justices suggested the 2007 law went too far in restricting free speech rights of people who want to prevent abortions from taking place.

Justice Antonin Scalia, leading the charge against the law, complained that the state calls those people "protesters." He referred to it as a "counseling" case and said the goal of the challengers was "to comfort these women."

By keeping abortion opponents such as 77-year-old Eleanor McCullen at a distance that one litigator compared to basketball's three-point zone, the state ensures that "what they can't do is try to talk the woman out of the abortion," Scalia said.

But several of the court's more liberal justices said it would be too difficult to craft a law that prevents congestion and disruption at the entrances to abortion clinics without infringing somewhat on free speech.

The state "doesn't know in advance" who might be disruptive, said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "After the disturbance occurs, it's too late."

The law is an expansion of a Colorado buffer zone upheld by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling in 2000. But that zone was just 8 feet deep, and it produced harsh objections from several justices - including Anthony Kennedy, who appeared equally concerned about the Massachusetts law.

Even liberal Justice Elena Kagan expressed doubts about the 35-foot distance, which she compared with the width of the marble courtroom.

"Thirty-five feet is a ways," she said. "It's pretty much this courtroom, kind of. That's a lot of space."

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor had less of a problem with the distance, which she described as "two car lengths."

The justices also have less of a problem clearing the decks of their own outdoor plaza. After a federal district court judge ruled last year that a 1949 law barring demonstrations on court property was unconstitutional, the court quickly issued a regulation that has the same effect. Chief Justice John Roberts - who was unusually silent Wednesday - approved the regulation.

The Massachusetts buffer zone was enacted because of what officials said was past violence, disruption and congestion at many of the state's 11 reproductive health clinics. But Mark Rienzi, McCullen's attorney, argued that the law went too far. Most of the trouble has occurred at the Boston clinic on Saturday mornings, he said - something local police can manage.

Much of the debate Wednesday focused on whether a less restrictive statute could have been written.

Kennedy, whose vote usually is critical to forming a majority, said people who physically obstruct abortion clinics are different from those who peacefully talk to clients. "Justice Holmes said, 'Even a dog knows the difference in being stumbled over and being kicked,'" he said.

McCullen and other abortion opponents have sought for years to waylay women on their way to getting abortions by offering advice and alternatives. For that, she shouldn't be threatened with being thrown in jail, Rienzi said.

But Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, represented in court by her assistant, Jennifer Miller, contends that the state's 2007 law restricts all speech, not just opposition to abortion. The state argues in its brief that the law was needed to end violence and blockades outside abortion clinics; in 1994, two clinic employees were shot and killed.

"I thought the justices asked insightful questions about the constitutional balance that this law must, and we believe does, strike," Coakley said after the oral argument. "I am hopeful that they will conclude that the buffer zone statute appropriately protects speech, health care access and public safety, and should remain law."

The argument that the law is content-neutral was challenged vigorously by Justice Samuel Alito. He said clinic employees on their way to or from work can greet women with the message, "This is a safe facility," but opponents cannot say, "This is not a safe facility."

The Justice Department took Massachusetts' side of the argument, noting that buffer zones have been allowed outside political conventions, circuses and funerals. The state has had problems at abortion clinics for 20 years, Deputy Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn said, and "they tried other things."